LOCATING THE SCANDAL OF THE EVANGELICAL MIND
by
David Bundy
The volume by Mark Noll entitled The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind is but the latest in a series of reflections and lamentations on the state of Evangelical scholarship.[1] It develops many of the arguments expressed during the 1985 conference planned and hosted by the Institute for the Study of American Evangelicals entitled "The Task of Evangelical Higher Education." The papers from that Conference were published under the title Making Higher Education Christian.[2] In this earlier volume, no one focused on the Holiness or Pentecostal traditions of higher education or on the theology which sustains them. Indeed, much of the data provided in this book about institutions of these traditions is incorrect or incomplete. In addition to numerous published essays, Noll also pondered many of these concerns in his remarkable examination of Evangelical scholarship in the area of Biblical studies.[3] This study devoted marginal attention to Holiness, Pentecostal or Dispensationalist scholars.
In Noll's Scandal of the Evangelical Mind, the scholars of the Holiness, Pentecostal, and Dispensationalist traditions find themselves part of the central thesis of the volume. It is a dubious distinction. In this work the intellectual structures and spirituality of the Holiness, Pentecostal, and Dispensationalist traditions receive the blame for the anti-intellectualism of American Evangelicalism. If this book had not been written by one of the more competent, sensitive, and kindly interpreters of American religious culture, it could be dismissed lightly as just another in the long line of scholarly attacks on the tradition that go back at least as far as the protagonists of Finney.
However, there is much in this present book by Noll that is compelling if one can make it past the vast generalizations, the analyses of Edwards and Wesley, and the occasional faux pas with regard to the lives and theology of adherents of the Holiness, Pentecostal, and Dispensationalist tradition. The sad reality is that there is a strong current of anti-intellectualism within these traditions (and, it must be noted, others). Most of those who are scholars in religion or other fields in American culture and who wish to remain attached to the community of faith which nurtured that initial interest have experienced at least some anti-intellectualism.
The same is true for the members of the Wesleyan Theological Society, the context in which this current discussion is occurring. In the case of one present, the ramifications were many when a Free Methodist Bishop sitting with him and his spouse in a restaurant in Brussels identified the scholarly aspirations of that individual and those like him as "the central problem" of the denomination. Another Free Methodist Bishop wrote to one budding published scholar saying he was too specialized and academic to be of any use to the church. The father of one of the long- time leaders of the Wesleyan Theological Society was a faculty member at Wesleyan/Holiness institutions all of his professional life. He supplemented his minimal income by working night shifts as a manual laborer at a shipping company to raise his three children-and he still managed to be one of the more productive Holiness scholars of his generation. Yes there is much in Noll's observations and analyses that has been lived by scholars of the traditions.
One the other hand, the generalizations of Noll are too easy and do not take into account much of the historical experience of the Holiness, Pentecostal, and Dispensationalist traditions within American culture. There are many things that his study of Evangelical cultural participation does not explain. Why have the existing educational structures been necessary? Why have generations of Holiness, Pentecostal, and Dispensationalist scholars struggled with significant sacrifice to sustain and develop accredited educational institutions across the country? Why have they continued to march in large numbers into the halls of academia wherever they can gain access? Why have they sought to learn at the feet of the cultured despisers of their values and spirituality? What have been the sustaining forces of the anti-intellectualism in these traditions? The questions raised by Noll strike at the heart of these three traditions. He disparages their theology and spirituality. He discounts both their intellectual viability and their usefulness in the struggle for the mind of American culture. If scholars interested in the Holiness, Pentecostal, and Dispensationalist traditions are able to respond creatively and judiciously to the Noll challenge, he will have done scholars of this tradition a great service.
In responding, it is important to recognize that this generation is not the first to wrestle with these issues. For example, in December, 1965, the General Superintendents of the Pilgrim Holiness Church convened a "Study Conference on Pilgrim Higher Education."[4] The program for the conference, with the U. S. and "Christian" flags on the front, observed:
Life itself was the education of pioneers... But in the highly dynamic social and economic order, the youth is lost who does not have formal schooling, as much and as good as possible. Along with the individual, society also suffers when education of youth is neglected.
At that conference, Walter L. Thomas, Director of Institutional Studies at Spring Arbor College, lamented the paucity of Wesleyan/Holiness scholars able to function at a nationally competitive level in their disciplines. David L. McKenna, then President of Spring Arbor College, insisted that Evangelical colleges had an obligation to prepare people for competitive graduate study. His analysis of the difficulties in assembling scholarly resources, identifying competent scholars committed to the traditions of the institutions, and maintaining relationships with the constituents has a 1990's ring. He also warned that the churches and the Evangelical educational institutions could devour each other by blaming each other for their marginalization within the larger cultural structures.
The participants in this present discussion at the 1996 annual meeting of the Wesleyan Theological Society were selected to represent and/or examine perspectives and issues raised in Mark Noll's The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind. The presentations by David Bundy, Harold Knight, and William Kostlevy appear elsewhere in this issue of the Wesleyan Theological Journal. Knight, Saint Paul School of Theology, discussed the development of the relationship of John Wesley to science, theology, and mission. He argued that adapting Wesley as model does not require a choice between "revivalism" and the life of the mind. Bundy, Christian Theological Seminary, presented an analysis of the alienation and exclusion of Wesleyan/Holiness scholars from the University culture. This essay indicated that the marginalization of Wesleyan/Holiness values and the cultural reaction to intellectual and social trends were major contributors to the impulse for creating parallel educational structures. Suggested were possible avenues for cooperative scholarly enterprise to address the shortcomings of the present system.
William Kostlevy, Asbury Theological Seminary, argued that the role of millennialism in American religious experience is more complex than allowed by Noll's paradigm and suggested that the social analysis of millenarian theology had been underestimated. Kostlevy's presentation was followed by a complementary theological analysis by Steven Land, Church of God School of Theology (Cleveland, Tennessee). He demonstrated that eschatology, holiness, and mission are closely intertwined from the perspective of Wesleyan/Holiness Pentecostalism. The goal of all, he argued, is a world transformed.[5] Donald A. D. Thorsen, Azusa Pacific University, asserted that there is a significant scholarly heritage in the Wesleyan/Holiness tradition and that its intellectual structures and piety are not antithetical to the intellectual life. His arguments were restated in his Presidential Address to the Wesleyan Theological Society that was published in the Wesleyan Theological Journal.[6] The essays of Knight, Bundy and Kostlevy are published together here, an indication of their common purpose.
Endnotes:
